ADDRESS  BY 

Honorable  CHARLES  NAG  EL 

Delivered  at  the  German  &  English 
Academy  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin, 
April  11,  1916,  at  8  o'clock,  before 
the  German  Literary  Society. 


» 


Mr.  Chairman,  and  Lad  ten  and  Gentlemen: 

Before  coming  here  a  very  courteous  representative  of 
the  press  asked  me  whether  1  had  a  manuscript  of  my  address, 
and  he  kindly  suggested  that,  perhaps,  owing  to  the  delicacy 
of  the  subject,  it  might  he  well  for  me  to  have  done  so.  Be 
may  be  right  about  that;  but  there  are  several  reasons  why  I 
do  not  prepare  manuscripts  on  occasions  of  this  kind.  One  is, 
that  I  have  not  the  time;  the  other  is  that  I  have  found  that, 
however  careless  an  expression  may  he  used  in  an  extempo- 
raneous speech,  the  press  is  usually  disposed  to  give  a  man 
credit  for  what  he  really  wants  to  say;  and  finally,  1  want  to 
say  that  I  am  in  the  habit  of  discussing  any  subject  given  me 
with  perfect  freedom.  If  I  cannot  speak  of  my  subject  with 
the  same  freedom  before  an  audience  that  1  would  enjoy  in  my  - 
own  household,  I  do  not  care  to  discuss  it  at  all.  I  I'eel  abso- 
lutely secure  in  my  own  relation  to  my  country.  I  have  no 
animosity  against  any  race  wherever  it  may  be ;  and  this  gives 
me  entire  security  in  speaking  to  the  hubject  which  1  propose 
to  discuss. 

I  need  not  say  that  if  conditions  in  this  country  were  nor- 
mal, as  I  wish  they  were,  I  should  he  glad  to  discuss  the  con- 
ditions on  the  other  side  on  their  own  merits.  I  am  not  one 
of  those  Americans  avIio  believe  that  so  great  a  war,  involving 
the  issues  of  such  enormous  importance  to  the  countries  im- 
mediately engaged,  can  be  waged  without  affecting  our  people 
and  our  country  in  a  most  substantial  manner.  Civilized  peo- 
ples are  too  closely  related,  bound  up  with  each  other  by 
treaties,  by  commercial  relations  and  in  our  case  by  human 
ties,  to  make  it  possible  to  have  such  a  war  impressed  upon 
the  pages  of  history  without  writing  down  something  that 
will  concern  us.  But  we  are  not  permitted  to  discuss  those 
questions — at  least,  times  are  not  such  in  our  midst  as  to  make 
it  possible  to  discuss  them  with  profit. 

We  have  been  forced  to  admit  that  we  are  concerned 
about  ourselves,  about  our  own  affairs  and  our  own  fate,  it 


is  time  that  we  made  it  clear  to  ourselves  that  this  is  the 
United  Stales,  and  that  we  are  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
and  that  we  must  stand  together,  must  understand  each  other, 
and  exercise  patience,  toleration  and  sympathy  for  each  other. 

We  cannot  deny  that  just  at  present  there  is  a  determined 
effort  being  made  to  involve  our  country  in  that  war.  I  do 
not  know  how  far  it  extends;  but  I  do  not  see  how  we  can 
close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  this  condition  exists.  Now,  the 
remarkable  feature  of  it  is  that  there  is  no  disposition— what- 
ever may  be  the  grievances  against  this  side  or  that— there  is 
no  disposition  that  I  can  discover  in  any  part  of  the  popula- 
tion of  this  country,  to  involve  our  country  in  war  against  the 
Allies.  There  is  only  one  agitation,  and  that  is  to  have  us  join 
the  Allies  against  Germany.  That  is  the  situation;  and  there 
is  no  use  in  blinking  at  facts.   That  is  so. 

Now  T  have  spoken  upon  subjects  of  this  kind  before,  and 
I  know  well  that  1  do  not  {(lease  either  extreme;  nor  do  I  want 
to.  J  i'eel  that  if  I  discuss  this  question  at  all  I  necessarily 
must  bear  more  upon  one  side  than  on  the  other,  because  the 
question  is  generally  presented  solely  with  respect  to  one  side. 
If  you  could  assure  me  that  under  the  conditions  that  now 
prevail  there  is  no  danger  of  war  between  our  country  and 
either  of  the  belligerents,  1  should  be  content  to  say  no  more. 
1  speak  only  because  it  appears  to  me  that  we  ought  to  make 
it  clear  to  ourselves,  in  view  of  this  constant  tenacious  effort, 
just  what  the  situation  is;  and  how  much  or  how  little  reason 
or  excuse  there  is  for  actual  conflict  between  this  country  and 
Germany  or  Austria. 

To  do  that  it  becomes  necessary  briefly  to  review  some  of 
the  occasions  for  friction  that  have  arisen,  at  the  risk  of 
wearying  my  hearers  with  facts  and  observations  that  I  have 
used  in  other  addresses.  1  think  as  we  review,  we  are  bound  to 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  in  practically  every  instance  the 
decision  has  been  against  Germany,  or  she  has  yielded;  so 
that  for  my  part  1  cannot  see  where  the  occasion  for  strife 


can  possibly  arise.  I  am  speaking  now  of  those  questions  that 
i  have  in  some  fashion  arisen  between  our  country  and  Ger- 

many. One  of  the  first  decisions  was  made  with  respect  to 
the  wireless  and  the  cable.  The  German  cable  was  cut  and 
our  communication  was  destroyed,  and  while  there  was  some 
question  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  act,  it  was  accepted  with- 
out protest.  The  wireless  system  of  Germany  had  a  station 
on  this  side,  and  we  concluded  that  it  must  be  governed  by 
rules  different  from  those  that  apply  to  a  cable;  and  that  we 
must  control  the  messages  sent  by  or  to  that  wireless  station. 
Why?  Because  the  wireless  could  reach  out  into  the  sea,  and 
because  it  could  not  be  cut.  True,  it  cannot  be  cut.  But  it 
can  be  destroyed;  and  we  have  been  told  over  and  over  again 
during  this  war,  that  the  mere  fact  that  this  or  that  belligerent 
has  an  advantage,  does  not  put  upon  us  the  burden  to  equalize 
those  advantages  between  the  belligerents.  We  have  accepted 
the  responsibility  for  a  decision  with  respect  to  an  entirely 
new  question;  and  all  the  messages  over  this  wireless  system 
are  censored.  We  do  it,  and  Germany  has  yielded.  There  is 
no  offense  there. 

In  the  Trent  case  it  was  established  that  the  citizens  of  a 
belligerent  cannot  be  taken  off  neutral  decks.  We  had  taken 
the  other  position  during  the  Civil  War;  and  at  the  instance 
of  Great  Britain  we  were  put  into  the  humiliating  position  of 
having  to  apologize  for  what  we  had  done,  and  of  having  to 
surrender  citizens  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  who  had  been 
taken  off  a  British  ship.  That  was  made  the  rule  of  Inter- 
national Law  by  Great  Britain's  demand  and  by  our  submis- 
sion. Nevertheless,  during  this  war  civilians  of  all  ages  and 
description  of  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary  have  been  taken 
from  the  decks  of  neutral  ships.  We  have  protested,  in  one  or 
two  instances,  with  belated  effect.  The  practice  has,  however, 
not  been  abandoned;  the  general  rule  of  International  haw  is 
not  respected.  For  practical  purposes  Germany  has  yielded. 
There  is  no  offense  against  us. 

—  5  — 


The  question  arose  whether  we,  having  declared  our  coun- 
try neutral,  and  having  appealed  to  the  people  to  he  neutral, 
ought  under  those  circumstances  to  engage  in  the  munitions 
business.   I  am  of  the  opinion  that  as  a  matter  of  strict  Inter- 
national Law  the  citizens  of  our  country  had  the  right  to 
manufacture  and  to  sell  ainmunition;  and  I  am  also  disposed 
to  helieve  that  if  we  adopted  that  policy  in  the  beginning  of 
the  war,  it  might  have  been  regarded  as  unneutral  not  to  con- 
tinue the  practice,  unless  we  had  special  cause  for  changing 
,  our  policy  by  adopting  retaliatory  measures  against  the  bel- 
ligerent who  enjoyed  our  assistance.  All  that  is  true  enough; 
but  we  did  not  stop  there.  Is  it  reasonable  to  say  that  because 
our  citizens  were  authorized  to  sell  ammunition  and  to  con- 
tinue to  sell,  that  therefore  it  was  proper  for  us  to  transform 
our  legitimate  industries  into  munition  factories;  and  to  sell 
a  thousand  times  as  much  ammunition  as  we  had  contemplated 
manufacturing  during  this  time?   That  is  the  real  question — 
because  conduct  in  international  affairs  is  governed  by  good 
faith.   The  reason  of  the  rule  determines  the  justice  or  the  in- 
justice of  our  attitude.    I  need  not  say  to  what  extent  this 
business  has  gone.  1  need  not  comment  upon  the  unfavorable 
results  that  have  come  to  our  own  country  in  consequence;  for 
which  we  will  pay  many  times  over  before  we  get  through. 
Hut  the  decision  was  made  and  Germany  yielded.  There  is  no 
cause  for  complaint  against  her. 

We  come  to  the  foreign  loans.  The  Secretary  of  State 
made  the  public  announcement  that  it  would  be  unneutral  for 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  take  foreign  war  loans. 
That  was  the  policy  of  our  State  at  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
Was  it  neutral  to  change  our  attitude  during  that  war,  after 
having  made  the  announcement?  Germany  Avas  in  a  position 
to  say  that  when  we  made  our  announcement  with  reference 
to  loans,  she  had  a  right  to  assume  that  that  policy  would  be 
maintained,  and  she  had  a  right  to  make  her  calculation  for 
this  conflict  upon  that  theory.  We  changed  our  position  with- 


out  explanation;  and  our  citizens,  by  the  assistance  of  o\ar 
financial  institutions,  which  operate  under  national  charters, 
and  are  practically  under  national  control,  made  the  most  tre- 
mendous war  loans  that  were  ever  known  in  history.  Ger- 
many did  not  understand  it:  and  it  was  not  explained;  hut  she 
has  yielded,  and  there  is  no  cause  for  complaint  there. 

What  other  question  has  been  raised  ?   The  question  with 
respect  to  the  use  of  the  submarine.  We  need  not  go  into  the 
beginning  of  that  controversy,  beyond  stating  that  the  first 
step  taken  was  the  British  Order  in  Council  for  laying  mines 
in  the  North  Sea  to  compel  every  ship,  neutral  and  otherwise, 
to  go  so  close  to  the  British  shores  that  it  could  be  inspected. 
The  avowed  purpose  was  to  destroy  Germany  by  starving  her. 
That  was  the  statement  made.    What  was  Germany's  re- 
sponse?   She  protested  for  three  months,  and  issued  the 
warning  that  if  we  submitted  to  the  order  of  starvation 
against  her — if  we  did  not  assert  our  right  l<>  deliver  non- 
contraband  goods  to  a  friendly  power,  that  she  would  he  com- 
pelled to  retaliate  in  her  own  defense,  by  destroying  British 
commerce  at  sea.    That  was  the  situation.    By  every  rule 
under  international  Law,  recognized  for  a  century,  our  coun- 
try had  a  right  to  sell  non-contraband  goods  to  the  civilians 
of  Germany.    In  the  war  between  Russia  and  Japan,  Japan 
undertook  to  confiscate  rice;  and  Lansdowne  said  that  rice 
cannot  be  held  unless  it  is  shown  affirmatively  that  it  is  in- 
tended for  the  army;  that  if  it  is  intended  for  civilians  it 
must  be  released;  and  if  the  prize  court  decides  to  hold  it,  the 
decision  will  not  he  conclusive  unless  if  is  found  to  be  in  line 
with  the  rules  of  International  Law.    In  the  Boer  War,  Salis- 
bury made  the  same  decision;  and  Secretary   Hay  of  the 
United  States  made  the  same  announcement.    That  was  the 
law. 

So  Germany  responded  by  saying  that  she  is  fighting  for 
her  life;  that  it  is  war  to  the  knife;  and  flint  she  proposes  to 
do  what  she  can  to  protect  her  people  and  to  indict  the  same 


calamity  upon  her  enemy  that  has  been  imposed  upon  her. 
The  result  was  tier  attack  upon  a  passenger  ship  carrying  am- 
munition.  That  raised  a  question.    We  are  not  so  much  con- 
cerned with  the  merits  of  the  question  now.    My  own  judg- 
ment has  always  been  that  in  time  of  war  a  passenger  ship 
should  not  be  permitted  to  carry  ammunition  to  the  enemy; 
or  passengers  invoking  the  protection  of  their  government 
should  not  travel  on  ammunition  carriers.   I  know  they  make 
a  distinction  between  a  passenger  ship  and  an  auxiliary;  but 
what  is  to  determine — the  passengers  on  top,  or  the  ammuni- 
tion below?   If  we  were  at  war  with  a  foreign  power,  and  a 
passenger  ship  belonging  to  that  power  undertook  to  carry 
ammunition  to  our  enemy,  and  claimed  protection  for  that  ship 
because  a  neutral  was  on  hoard — do  you  believe  any  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  would  stay  in  office  if  he  permitted  the  delivery  of 
that  ammunition  to  our  enemy?  (Applause.) 

But  why  argue  about  it?  1  admit  it  is  a  question;  and  I 
know  I  cannot  decide  it.  But  it  has  been  decided  to  preserve 
the  peace  of  a  century  with  a  friendly  nation.  The  one  great 
nation  that  has  never  broken  friendship  with  us,  Germany, 
yielded;  and  that  question  is  disposed  of.  There  is  no  cause 
for  war. 

We  come  now  to  the  last  question — the  use  of  submarines 
against  merchantmen  armed  for  offensive  or  defensive  pur- 
poses. Let  us  examine  that  question.  Look  at  it  fairly.  In 
1913  Winston  Churchill,  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  stated  in  Par- 
liament that  he  had  arranged  to  have  all  merchantmen  armed 
in  time  of  war;  that  the  ships  were  being  reconstructed,  and 
that  the  Admiralty  would  be  prepared  to  furnish  those  ships 
with  guns  and  ammunition.  That  was  in  1913.  We  have  not 
seen  the  orders  in  this  war;  but  we  have  read  that  instructions 
were  given  to  fire  and  to  ram.  What  is  the  submarine  to  do? 
To  come  up  and  inquire  politely  whether  in  this  instance  the 
armed  merchantman  is  going  to  ram  or  to  shoot?  {Applause.) 
To  inquire  whether  the  ship  belongs  to  this  class  or  that  class 


of  merchantmen  ?    It  does  not  stand  to  reason.    The  Ameri- 
can mind  will  not  accept  such  a  rule  for  the  conduct  of  war. 
No  Englishman  and  no  German  w  ill.   They  are  all  good  fight- 
ers, and  they  will  not  he  hound  by  that  kind  of  a  game  of 
chance.   On  the  contrary,  every  American  sees  the  absurdity 
of  it.   He  knows  enough  about  Western  life  to  know  that  the 
man  who  gets  the  drop,  gets  his  man.    That  is  all  about  that 
proposition.    However,  again  it  is  a  new  question.    The  sub- 
marine presents  a  novel  question  throughout,  and  no  man  can 
decide  its  status.   You  can  only  reason  about  it;  and  come  to 
this  conclusion  or  that.  But  1  would  like  to  know,  and  it  would 
be  interesting  for  the  American  people  to  he  told,  what  our 
own  navy  had  in  mind  when  it  recommended  the  building  of 
submarines?    1  would  like  to  know  what  navy  men  think  of 
this  question.    They  cannot  talk  unless  they  are  asked ;  and  1 
wish  they  might  be  asked.    But  again,  suppose  we  cannot 
agree  upon  that  question;  suppose  Germany  says  she  insists 
upon  her  position  and  we  say  that  she  is  wrong.    I  s  that  cause 
for  war?   That  is  the  real  question  in  which  I  am  interested. 
I  say  it  presents  no  such  cause.    {Applause.)    It  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  the  result  to  us  is  a  remote  one;  it  is  not  an  in- 
tended offense,  and  all  conduct  in  private  or  International 
Law  is  to  be  judged  by  the  intent  that  prompts  it.  Germany 
does  not  want  difficulty  with  us.   She  has  made  it  obvious  that 
it  is  her  supreme  purpose  to  dispose  of  every  controversy 
without  estranging  this  nation.    What  is  the  ground  of  our 
complaint  ?    I  want  to  say  frankly  that  we  should  not  be  quick 
to  criticize  our  government,  which  is  responsible  for  this  sit- 
uation.   We' cannot  he  told  everything  that  the  responsible 
executive  knows.    That  is  impossible.    1  am  here  to  speak 
more  especially  about  public  opinion,  because  after  all  public 
opinion  is  the  most  powerful  factor  in  this  country.    This  is 
a  popular  government  and  we,  the  people,  are  really  the  gov- 
ernment.  So  I  ask,  why  should  we  be  so  sensitive  about  the 
right  of  an  American  citizen  to  travel  on  a  belligerent  ship  in 


the  war  /one?   There  is  no  such  principle  applied  anywhere 
else.  1  traveled  in  Germany  during  the  war  close  to  the  Rhine. 
I  traveled  with  soldiers  going  out  and  with  wounded  men  corn- 
in-  back.    I  knew  perfectly  well  that  if  I  got  within  the  war 
zone  I  would  have  no  protection  as  an  American  citizen.  I 
took  the  chance,  slight  as  it  was;  and  if  1  did  not  want  to  take 
it,  I  had  no  business  there.    Did  we  not  say  to  our  own  citi- 
zens on  the  other  side  in  Germany,  that  if  they  remained  be- 
yond a  certain  date,  they  would  have  to  do  so  at  their  own 
risk?   Why?   Because  it  was  best  for  them  to  come  home  in 
the  opinion  of  our  government.    Did  we  not  say  to  the  citizens 
in  Mexico  that  they  had  better  get  out  of  that  country?  Did 
we  tell  them  not  to  surrender  their  right  as  citizens  to  live 
there  under  our  treaty  with  Mexico?    No;  we  told  them  to 
(•(tine  home.    Why?    Because  we  did  not  want  to  take  the  re- 
sponsibility for  the  situation.    What  is  the  difference?  We 
have  heard  the  argument  that  our  citizens  can  not  travel  on 
our  own  ships,  because  we  have  none.  I  admit  that  (laughter), 
hut  I  do  not  admit  that  there  are  no  neutral  ships.   There  are 
an  abundance  of  them;  and  if  the  rules  of  International  Law 
had  been  maintained  from  the  beginning,  instead  of  permit- 
ting them  to  he  lowered  and  low  ered  from  month  to  month  and 
year  to  year,  neutral  ships  would  ply  those  waters  with  per- 
fect security.    In  any  event,  the  safe  course,  because  it  elimi- 
nates these  questions,  is  to  travel  on  neutral  ships.    That  is 
what  most  of  us  did  when  we  came  home.    Why  not?  Why, 
then,  insist  upon  a  close  question  like  this,  which  after  all  in- 
volves only  the  convenience,  perhaps  the  comfort  of  a  very 
few  people?    Are  we  to  stake  our  friendship  with  a  great 
power  upon  so  narrow  a  margin;  and  say  that  if  the  point  is 
not  yielded,  we  will  he  compelled  to  sever  relations  or  perhaps 
to  declare  w  ar  to  save  our  honor,  all  in  the  name  of  humanity? 
I  feel  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  not  of  that  opinion.    {Applause.)   And  when  I  say 
1  pie  of  the  I'nited  States.  I  include  the  territory  west  of 

—  10  — 


X 


the  Alleghenies.  There  is  too  much  disposition  to  accept  tho 
reckless  declarations  of  a  very  few  people  in  this  country  as 
the  voice  of  the  people.  It'  we  were  more  thoroughly  informed 
about  ourselv.es,  we  would  know  that  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try, composed  as  they  are  of  all  the  races  of  the  world,  want 
to  live  in  harmony  with  each  other;  have  patience  ami  tolera- 
tion for  each  other,  and  are  not  disposed  to  engage  in  war 
upon  so  narrow  an  argument. 

That  we  have  no  technical  ground  for  war  seems  to  be 
admitted  in  a  measure;  because  the  demand  for  war  is  now 
expressed  upon  new  grounds.  For  ;i  long  time  we  did  not 
believe  that  so  bold  a  position  would  be  taken  by  anybody; 
but  we  are  now  told  that  it  does  not  make  any  difference 
whether  we  have  arguments  or  not,  that  the  United  States 
ought  to  join  the  Allies  on  general  principles.  (Laughter.) 
That  statement  is  made  by  responisble  men,  and  is  being  cir- 
culated all  over  the  country.  That  is  a  new  doctrine,  and  1 
wonder  how  we  are  to  reconcile  that  statement  with  our  dec- 
laration of  neutrality  at  the  beginning  of  the  war.  We  said 
that  we  must  keep  to  the  same  policy  during  the  war.  We 
insisted  upon  this  rule  in  the  beginning,  and  here  is  a  good 
case  to  bring  within  the  rule.  To  repeat,  we  did  not  suppose 
that  anybody  would  go  so  far  as  to  urge  war  as  a  matter  of 
choice,  although  we  had  known  for  a  long  time,  and  were 
bound  to  admit,  that  there  was  intense  passion  and  feeling 
among  the  people  of  some  sections  of  our  country.  I  do  not 
think  it  was  all  one  sided.  I  think  there  have  been  a  great 
many  foolish  things  done  on  both  sides.  I  believe  a  great 
many  people  in  this  count  ry  were  for  a  time  disposed  to  forget 
that  this  is  the  United  Stales,  and  that  we  are  citizens  of  it; 
and  that  every  utterance  we  make  must  be  made  from  the 
platform  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  speaking  to  the  point  that  there  is  no  cause  for  war; 
and  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  suggestion  of  war  against  the 
Allies,  1  must  devote  myself  to  the  only  suggestion  that  has 

—  11  — 


v 


been  made,  which  is  war  against  the  Central  Powers.  What 
are  the  evidences  of*  hostility?  Take  the  manifestation  of 
feeling  in  collections  that  have  been  made  in  this  country.  No 
one  can  deny  that  it  lias  become  intensely  partisan.  For  a 
whole  year  I  refused  to  give  to  any  organization  except  the 
American  Red  Cross;  upon  the  supposition  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  should  depend  upon  it  to  make  an  honest 
distribution  to  all  the  sufferers  of  the  world.  Could  such  a 
plan  be  carried  out?  It  could  not.  We  constantly  receive 
pleas  for  aid  for  this  country  and  for  that.  T  know  that  those 
who  sympathize  with  Germany  have  had  their  bazaars.  Those 
who  sympathize  with  others  have  had  theirs.  We  have  given 
to  both.  Those  who  sympathize  with  Belgium  have  had  their 
collections  and  I  have  been  chairman  of  a  committee.  Why 
not?  But  that  is  a  different  thing  from  having  the  same 
names  come  before  you  every  few  months  with  a  new  call  and 
always  for  the  same  side.  That  means  partisanship,  and  that 
means  an  invitation  to  a  fight.  We  have  had  too  much  of 
that.  That  manifestation  we  ought  to  combat.  It  always 
appears  with  the  imputation  that  one  side  is  wrong  and  the 
other  side  is  right;  and  that  anybody  who  sympathizes  with 
or  gives  to  Germany  is  not  an  American.  That  imputation 
no  man  can  submit  to.  No  man  can  ask  me  to  have  my  citi- 
zenship and  my  patriotism  measured  by  any  such  methods. 

Consider  the  way  in  which  prosecutions  have  been  had. 
I  las  there  ever  been  an  opportunity  missed  to  designate  some- 
body as  a  German  spy  ?  I  have  not  had  any  doubt  that  there 
were  spies;  nor  have  I  any  doubt  that  the  other  side  has  an 
abundance  of  them  in  this  country.  But  we  read  about  Ger- 
man spies  all  the  time.  It  does  not  make  any  difference 
whether  they  have  Irish  names  or  other  names.  (Laughter.) 
Even  when  a  man  takes  possession  of  a  whole  ship,  captain 
and  crew  included,  in  broad  daylight,  they  call  him  a  spy. 
(Laughter  and  applause.)  I  do  not  know  what  he  did  or  who 
he  is;  no  one  will  justify  his  acts.    I  speak  of  it  because  it 

—  12  — 


suggests  the  disposition  to  put  before  the  public  constantly 
the  same  argument  that  there  is  something  wrong  with  a  part 
of  the  people  of  our  own  country. 

Then  we  hear  of  conspiracy.  1  do  not  know;  but  1  have 
no  doubt  that  there  have  been  wrong  things  done — some  stu- 
pid and  others  worse.  But  1  venture  to  say  that  if  any  really 
legitimate  business  received  as  large  contracts,  made  as  enor- 
mous profits  as  the  ammunition  business  does,  there  would  be 
some  district  attorney  or  some  attorney  general  who  would 
want  to  know  how  it  is  done.  {Applause  and  laughter.)  In- 
deed, we  would  be  very  fortunate  if  he  did  not  run  for  (Jov- 
ernor  or  President  on  the  disclosures.  1  do  not  know  the  de- 
tails, but  I  do  know  that  in  legitimate  business  such  success 
would  be  accepted  as  sufficient  provocation  for  an  investiga- 
tion. 

I  am  sometimes  asked  why  the  press  is  partial?  My  an- 
swer is  that  I  am  willing  to  assume  that  most  newspapers 
publish  everything  that  they  can  get;  hut  we  should  not  over- 
look that  the  regulation  of  what  the  press  can  get  is  the  best 
illustration  of  preparedness  that  has  ever  come  under  our 
observation.  We  have  to  deal  with  the  finest  system  of  con- 
trol for  putting  out  information  that  was  ever  invented.  Does 
not  the  truth  come  over  after  a  while?  Yes,  but  with  us  the 
truth  is  not  interesting  on  its  merits.  We  publish  newspapers, 
and  an  account  of  something  that  has  not  happened  at  all  is 
very  much  more  interesting  to  our  readers  than  the  truth  that 
is  two  weeks  old.  In  the  main,  the  regulation  of  news  is  as 
absolute  as  the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun.  One  side  of 
this  war  cannot  get  its  information  over  in  less  than  two 
weeks,  if  at  all;  and  therefore,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
under  our  system  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get  a  fair  and 
normal  picture  of  what  is  actually  going  on.  These  are  only 
illustrations  of  the  difficulties  under  which  we  live,  and  get 
our  facts. 


Now  come  distinguished  gentlemen  and  say  that  no  mat- 
ter what  the  situation  may  be— no  matter  whether  we  have 
grievances  of  our  own  or  not— we  ought  to  engage  in  war; 
and  in  that  fashion  we  are  coming  back  to  the  case  of  Belgium. 
Again  it  is  not  for  me  to  discuss  the  right  and  wrong  of  it. 
But  in  view  of  what  some  of  these  gentlemen  said  a  year  and 
a  half  ago,  and  what  they  say  now,  I  cannot  suppress  the  sus- 
picion that  perhaps  the  intensity  of  feeling  about  Belgium  is 
somewhat  accentuated  by  the  fact  that  this  is  a  presidential 
year.    This  constitutes  one  danger  in  the  situation.  Right 
now  the  danger  I*  that  our  international  relations  will  be  made 
a  football  between  political  parties.    (Applause.)    I  do  not 
want  to  minimize  the  gravity  of  the  invasion  of  Belgium. 
Germany  herself  did  not.   But  I  want  to  express  my  surprise 
that  distinguished  men  in  our  country  single  out  Belgium, 
when  they  might  have  shown  well-poised  minds  by  referring 
to  other  cases,  at  the  same  time.    When  the  Boers  were  at- 
tacked by  Great  Britain  the  people  of  the  United  States  sym- 
pathized w  ith  the  Boers  almost  universally.   Did  our  country 
protest?  Not  at  all.  Was  the  taking  of  that  country  and  the 
conquering  of  that  people  justified .'   They  were  a  fine  people 
-descendants  of  the  Dutch  and  Hugenots,  as  sturdy  stocks  as 
history  has  ever  known.    They  were  taken  bodily,  country 
and  all.   Did  we  protest?  No.   Have  Ave  changed  our  minds? 
We  used  to  admire  Edmund  Burke  for  prosecuting  Warren 
Eastings  of  India.    Do  we  propose  to  worship  at  the  shrine 
of  Cecil  Rhodes  now  I    Korea  was  taken  by  Japan  at  a  time 
when  men  who  now  speak  had  a  right  to  act;  and  we  had  a 
treaty  with  Korea.    We  waited  at  least  long  enough  to  have 
the  taking  of  Korea  consummated,  and  we  never  protested 
Why  are  we  so  sensitive  now  ?    When  Finland  was  deprived 
of  he,-  liberties,  guaranteed  to  her  by  a  solemn  document- 
liberties  destroyed  by  the  stroke  of  a  pen-did  we  protest? 
They  are  a  line  people.    J  know  only  what  I  have  read  in 
English  books;  and  for  whatever  I  say,  I  rely  substantially 

—  14  — 


upon  English  books.  It  is  said  that  the  Finlanders  are  a  peo- 
ple 90  per  cent  Lutheran,  with  a  literature  of  their  own;  with 
a  school  system.  But  they  were  subjected  to  a  power  which 
in  every  respect  is  antagonistic  to  their  national  spirit.  Did 
we  protest  ?  Why,  no. 

When  a  few  years  ago  Persia  was  practically  divided  be- 
tween Russia  and  Great  Britain  we  had  a  representative,  an 
American,  over  there,  who  was  to  put  the  house  in  order,  lie 
was  invited  by  Persia.  A  treaty  had  been  made  between  Rus- 
sia and  Great  Britain,  guaranteeing  the  integrity  and  inde- 
pendence of  Persia.  But  when  it  appeared  that  the  house 
might  be  put  in  order  it  was  realized  that  a  convenient  cause 
for  intervention  might  be  lost;  and  the  result  was  that  Russia 
took  one-hall'  of  Persia,  and  Great  Britain  took  one-half  of 
the  other  half,  and  Persia  is  destroyed.  Did  we  protest? 
Why,  no.   That  was  only  a  few  years  ago. 

When  Greece  was  occupied  in  this  war  against  her  pro- 
tests, after  we  had  heard  a  great  deal  about  the  protection 
of  small  nations,  did  we  protest?  And  when  Great  Britain, 
to  induce  Italy  to  go  into  the  war,  made  an  agreement  by 
which  Dalmatia  was  promised  to  Italy,  subjecting  an  entirely 
foreign  people  to  Latin  control,  did  we  protest?  Why,  no. 
But  there  were  Englishmen  w  ho  did.  (Laughter.)  Do  not 
understand  me  as  criticising  the  English  people.  There  are 
as  brave  men  in  England  today  as  there  were  in  the  days  of 
our  Revolution.  I  read  only  the  other  day  an  Englishman's 
statement  that  when  the  surrender  of  Dalmatia  to  Italy  was 
consented  to  by  the  British  government,  every  ground  for 
complaint  on  account  of  the  invasion  of  Belgium  was  lost. 
(Applause.) 

But  why  should  we,  a  neutral  power  on  friendly  terms 
with  all  these  nations — our  people  composed  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  all  these  people — why  should  we  seize  upon  one  case 
to  constitute  it  a  cause  for  war,  without  regard  to  all  these 
other  cases  that  stare  us  in  the  face? 

—  15  — 


Coupled  with  this,  of  course,  we  always  have  the  charge 
of  atrocities.  1  believe  there  were  atrocities  and  I  never 
heard  of  a  war  without  them.  That  is  one  of  the  arguments 
against  war;  and  while  1  am  not  a  pacifist,  I  do  believe  in 
peace  with  honor  if  it  is  at  all  possible.  In  my  judgment  the 
one  thing  that  we  should  ask  of  our  public  men  is  that  when 
they  talk  about  atrocities  they  should  include  all  of  them,  in 
order  that  we  may  get  a  fair  picture  of  the  actual  situation. 

I  was  in  Switzerland  light  after  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
I  read  Swiss  papers  that  told  me — and  they  seemed  to  be  im- 
partial— that  there  had  been  atrocities  visited  upon  German 
citizens  in  Belgium  before  the  German  army  invaded  that 
country.  1  have  read  since  then  that  there  were  atrocities 
committed  by  both  sides  after  the  army  invaded  Belgium.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  Belgium  were  as  much  sur-  " 
prised  as  we  were.  They  did  not  know  what  their  government 
had  done.  1  have  no  question  that  they  may  have  done  what 
we  would  have  done  as  civilians;  but  in  doing  it  they  must  take 
the  chance  of  war.  There  are  some  distinguished  men  in  this 
country  who  will  run  the  risk  of  losing  their  reputation  as 
historians  if  they  persist  in  giving  us  colored  pictures. 
(Laughter  and  applause.)  I  have  read — I  confess  I  had  to  go 
to  German  papers;  but  T  have  read  the  German  papers  and 
the  official  reports  about  East  Prussia.  No  man  can  judge  of 
atrocities  until  he  lias  read  those  accounts;  and  if  we  are  go- 
ing to  collect  for  civilians  who  have  suffered  all  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  war,  let  us  include  East  Prussia,  because 
there  was  as  wanton,  ruthless,  brutal  destruction  of  life  and 
property  as  this  war  has  witnessed.  (Applause.) 

How  about  Siberia?  Have  you  read  the  accounts  of  the 
treatment  of  the  prisoners  in  Siberia?  We  do  not  have  to 
rely  upon  German  reports,  for  we  may  read  reports  that  come 
from  our  own  nurses  and  representatives.  Have  you  read  the 
reports  about  the  inhabitants  and  the  missionaries  in  the  Ger- 
man colonies  of  South  Africa?    No  man  should  consent  to 


—  16  — 


write  upon  the  subject  of  atrocities  until  he  has  familiarized 
himself  with  those  reports.  If  it  is  a  question  of  opinion  in 
this  country,  of  swaying  that  opinion  by  this  kind  of  accounts, 
then  I  say  put  the  whole  case— all  the  facts— before  all  the 
people;  and  they  will  be  neutral.  {Applause.) 

But  for  prejudice,  how  would  it  be  possible  for  a  nation 
to  submit  without  earnest  protest  to  the  humiliating  British 
order  against  the  American  Red  Cross?  How  could  the 
flagrant  interference  with  our  mails,  pass  with  so  little  show 
of  indignation!  How  could  we  yield  the  enormous  loss  in 
legitimate  trade  with  friendly  powers?  How  could  we  accept 
the  pretense  of  a  peace  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  as  an  ex- 
planation for  our  submissive  attitude  in  all  our  controversies 
with  her?  And  how  could  we  herald  as  heroes,  legions  of 
Americans  who  have  joined  the  colors  of  the  Allies,  and  at  the 
same  time  demand  war  measures  to  avenge  the  loss  of  Ameri- 
can travelers  on  ammunition  carriers?  Is  it  not  obvious  that 
our  citizens  in  foreign  uniform  have  intentionally  destroyed 
thousands  of  Germans  and  Austrians,  while  several  hundred 
American  passengers  have  lost  their  lives  as  an  incident  to 
retaliatory  warfare — without  purpose  or  intent  against  us? 

Now,  what  is  the  explanation  of  this  attitude?  Why  this 
insistence  that  we  must  go  into  war  on  one  side,  reason  or  no 
reason?  I  will  tell  you  what  1  think.  1  think  it  is  a  mani- 
festation of  that  same  race  feeling  of  which  complaint  is  made. 
Everybody  of  German  descent  is  accused  of  being  a  partisan, 
but  I  think  the  critics  are  exhibiting  the  worst  partisanship 
that  has  been  shown  in  any  quarter.  (Applause.)  For  a 
while  it  was  fashionable  to  call  people  "hyphenated  citizens." 
That  never  disturbed  me,  because  I  knew  that  by  the  time  the 
elections  come  on  the  hyphen  would  either  be  dropped  al- 
together or  become  quite  fashionable.  (Laughter.)  1  do  not 
believe  In  the  hyphen  myself,  particularly  not  in  political  or- 
ganizations. I  never  have.  Mr.  Berger  will  know  the  experi- 
ence that  I  had  on  that  account.   I  have  always  insisted  that 


I  am  an  American  citizen  and  only  an  American  citizen  in 
politics ;  I  owe  my  whole  allegiance  to  this  country.  I  have  no 
grievance,  but  inasmuch  as  the  criticism  is  insisted  upon,  I 
could  point  out  some  men  who,  if  they  would  employ  a  hyphen, 
might  give  us  some  reason  to  think  that  they  still  have  an 
American  attachment.  (Laughter  and  applause.)  I  do  not 
want  to  be  hectored  by  men  who  boast  of  their  unneutrality. 
We  have  men  in  this  country  who  openly  say  that  they  are 
not  neutral,  and  do  not  want  to  be  neutral,  and  still  criticize 
other  men  and  women  and  children  for  indulging  a  most  nat- 
ural, human  sympathy  for  the  people  of  their  ancestry.  That 
will  not  do. 

I  saw  a  picture  the  other  day  in  one  of  our  papers  of  a 
German  with  the  United  Stales  flag  on  the  wall  behind  him, 
and  with  the  shadow  of  a  derman  shell  floating  past  him.  It 
was  called,  I  believe,  "  Divided  Allegiance."  That  was  a  seri- 
ous picture.  It  was  intended  to  hurt.  I  suppose  it  did  hurt. 
It  was  not  true,  because  the  sympathy  complained  of  does  not 
go  out  to  the  armed  power  of  a  foreign  country,  but  is  nothing 
more  than  human  sympathy  for  the  traditions  and  the  history 
of  ancestry.  Anyone  who  does  not  respect  his  ancestry  and 
the  traditions  of  his  people  is  unfit  for  American  citizenship. 
(Enthusiast  ic  applause. ) 

1  read  the  other  day  the  statement  in  one  of  our  papers  that 
Benry  James  had  never  been  a  greater  American  citizen  than 
on  the  day  when  he  became  a  citizen  of  Great  Britain.  (Ap~ 
plause  mid  laughter.)  1  do  not  know  just  what  was  meant. 
I  met  Henry  .lames  only  once  in  my  life;  and  those  who  were 
present  that  evening  recall  it  as  one  of  the  greatest  intellec- 
tual treats  that  was  ever  given  them.  He  was  a  charming 
man.  I  never  agreed  with  the  criticisms  of  Henry  James  in 
this  country ;  and  I  do  not  now  agree  with  the  enthusiastic  re- 
ception for  his  expatriatism.  If  we  are  to  accept  that  he  was 
never  a  greater  American  citizen  than  when  he  became  ex- 
patriated, it  is  difficult  to  suppress  the  inquiry,  what  kind  of 

—  18  — 


a  citizen  he  had  been.  (Laughter.)  To  be  perfectly  candid 
and  plain,  I  do  not  call  people  names  if  they  do  not  agree  with 
me.  Why  should  I .'  1  do  not  call  men  Tories  because  they 
sympathize  with  Great  Britain.,  The  sympathy  of  the  de- 
scendants of  England  is  just  as  natural  as  the  sympathy  of 
German  descendants  is  for  Germany.  T  do  not  quarrel  with 
either.  T  respect  them  both.  My  wife  is  of  English  descent. 
Her  people  came  over  in  lo\'>2.  (Ijanghtcr.)  1  believe,  for 
instance,  that  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  there  were  a  great 
many  Tories  who  were  very  deserving  men,  honorable  men, 
brave  men;  who  honestly  believed  that  it  would  have  been  the 
best  policy  for  these  colonies  to  continue  the  connection  with 
Great  Britain  as  have  Canada  and  Australia.  Why  .not? 
That  is  a  question  of  political  opinion  and  wisdom.  I  do  not 
know  why  our  school  books  should  denounce1  those  men  be- 
cause they  had  announced  another  opinion.  But  neither  do  1 
see  why  American  citizens  should  now  apologize  Tor  the  suc- 
cessful Revolution  by  which  their  ancestors  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  the  greatest  republic  in  history.  (Laughter  and  ap- 
plause.) 

There  is  too  much  of  the  spirit  of  apology  for  the  great 
things  that  we  have  done,  as  with  people  who  now  apologize 
for  the  Civil  War.  Many  young  people  w  ho  now-  enjoy  un- 
deserved comfort  seem  to  feel  that  it  would  he  very  convenient 
to  throw  in  a  slave  or  two.  (Laughter.)  There  is  too  much 
of  that  sentiment. 

When  it  comes  to  apologizing  for  the  great  epochs  in  out- 
history — and  that  is  what  it  comes  to— it  is  time  to  call  a  halt. 

What  is  the  charge  now— this  general  principle  charge- 
under  which  the  unneutral  argument  for  one  side  is  advanced? 
It  is  contended  that  the  fight  must  be  made  for  civilization. 
That  sounds  nearly  as  good  as  humanity.  You  know  about 
six  or  eight  years  ago  it  was  conservation.  The  whole  coun- 
try was  going  to  pieces  for  lack  of  conservation.  After  we 
had  defeated  a  few  candidates  and  elected  a  few  others  we 


forgot  all  about  conservation.   Then  we  came  to  organization, 
but  somehow  that  did  not  work  very  well.   Then  we  resorted 
to  humanity  and  civilization;  and  now  we  have  come  to  pre- 
paredness. I  am  in  favor  of  preparedness  and  have  been  for 
many  years.   My  only  fear  is  that  there  never  will  be  a  real 
scheme  of  preparedness  adopted,  because  the  war  will  be  used 
as  a  slogan  in  a  presidential  campaign;  and  when  we  get 
through  with  that  we  will  be  tired.    (Laughter.)    Now,  pre- 
paredness is  a  tremendous  scheme.    Some  people  no  doubt 
have  in  mind  preparedness  in  connection  with  this  foreign 
Mar;  but  1  do  not  think  they  have  read  to  great  advantage 
about  this  war  if  they  do.    I  am  of  opinion  that  if  we  entered 
it,  it  would  not  affect  the  result  of  this  war  either  way. 
We  arc  not  ready.   Other  people  talk  about  preparedness  as 
though  it  involved  nothing  but  a  military  appropriation.  I 
do  not  agree  with  them.    I  believe  that  we  should  have  men 
trained  so  that  we  could  call  out  an  army  if  it  became  neces- 
sary in  order  that  they  may  do  their  part  in  case  of  such  a 
disaster.   Nor  do  I  believe  that  the  cost  should  be  as  great  as 
is  promised;  because  if  our  appropriations  were  economically 
applied  we  could  have  quite  an  army  for  Avhat  we  spend  now. 
The  trouble  is  that  a  great  many  people  think  that  if  we  make 
an  appropriation  we  have  organized  the  army — just  as  easy 
as  that.  Now  it  involves  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  training. 
A  year  and  a  half  ago  any  man  who  was  not  against  military 
preparation— the  outcome  of  the  Prussian  system  was  de- 
nounced; and  today  anybody  who  is  not  in  favor  of  that  sys- 
tem is  also  denounced;  and  we  do  not  seem  to  remember  that 
we  have  changed  our  mind  on  the  subject.    The  fact  of  the 
matter  is  that  the  money  cost  is  the  smallest  part  of  it.  The 
great  need  is  the  system,  the  training  that  the  man  and  women 
must  have;  that  is  what  is  needed.   The  system  that  produces 
self-respect  and  order;  a  sense  of  duty,  and  a  certain  demo- 
cratic regard  of  one  for  the  other— that  is  what  we  need  in 
this  country.    We  are  traveling  toward  the  class  system  a 

—  20  — 


good  deal  faster  than  some  other  countries;  and  it  is  time  for 
us  to  know  it.  (Applause.)  It'  there  is  to  be  an  army  of 
service,  I  believe  in  making  it  democratic,  so  that  the  man 
who  shouts  will  have  to  go  himself  [applause) ;  so  that  he  may 
walk  side  by  side  with  somebody  else  who  has  not  shouted, 
and  listen  to  him  for  a  while.  That  is  democratic  (laughter 
and  applause)  and  that  is  equality. 

People  forget.  For  illustration,  1  have  been  brought  up 
as  an  admirer  of  the  English  system — worshiped  at  its  shrine. 
I  admired  things  in  Germany,  but  English  is  the  language  of 
our  country.  1  read  more  English  hooks,  of  course;  our  in- 
stitutions are  based  on  the  English  system,  and  1  not  only 
studied  it,  but  I  treasure  it.  Today  1  admire  England's  great 
men.  1  put  Burke  and  Erskins  and  Pitt  with  Washington  and 
Hamilton  and  Lincoln  on  my  walls.  But  some  years  ago  I 
began  to  ask  questions.  I  said,  what  is  the  matter?  England 
has  politically  great  freedom,  but  she  seems  to  have  more  of 
a  class  system  than  some  of  the  countries  that  are  called  bu- 
reaucratic. What  is  happening?  Now,  the  war  has  disclosed 
man}7  things;  and  one  of  them  is  that  Great  Britain  with  her 
voluntary  system  had  more  professional  soldiers  than  Ger- 
many. (Laughter.)  Few  people  believed  that.  Why  is  this 
true?  Because  the  great  majority  of  her  men  never  served, 
and  the  rest  of  them  served  all  the  time.  In  France  and  in 
Germany  every  man  who  is  able-bodied  has  to  serve  long 
enough  to  prepare  himself  for  actual  service  when  he  is 
needed.  When  he  has  done  that,  he  has  to  get  out  of  the  army 
and  go  to  work.   That  is  the  system  and  that  is  what  we  need. 

Since  we  speak  of  preparedness,  our  industrial  system  is 
if  anything  more  important  than  our  military  plan.  In  case 
of  a  modern  Avar,  if  such  a  thing  should  befall  us,  the  mere 
fact  that  we  have  so  many  soldiers  and  so  many  guns  and  so 
much  ammunition,  is  not  sufficient,  unless  we  have  an  indus- 
trial system  that  will  support  the  army,  and  will  keep  the 
civilians  employed  and  sustained  at  home  to  protect  the  coun- 


try  while  the  hoys  are  at  the  front.  If  you  have  not  that  pro- 
vision you  will  be  lost.  Why  has  Germany  developed  her 
strength,  people  ask  me.  She  has  developed  it  because  she 
has  one  comprehensive  system.  We  hear  complaints  about 
Germany's  laws  and  administration.  Remember,  she  has  not 
as  many  laws  as  we  have,  but  she  enforces  more.  (Laughter.) 
I  had  not  been  there  for  forty  years;  but  I  had  read  about 
Germany  for  some  years,  and  my  attention  was  being  aroused. 
I  relied  upon  an  English  hook.  The  author  made  it  perfectly 
clear  thai  Germany  had  a  comprehensive  plan,  military  and 
industrial  and  social.  When  they  ask  me  now,  how  her  armies 
do  it,  I  answer  that  they  do  not  do  it  alone  The  shaft  that 
drives  the  army  is  the  industrial  and  social  system  of  Ger- 
many; and  this  is  w  hat  we  need.  If  Ave  are  to  have  a  plan  of 
preparedness,  we  must  have  an  industrial  system  that  will 
come  to  the  support  of  the  government  which  is  responsible 
for  the  conflict.  A  system  upon  which  the  government  may 
lean,  to  which  it  may  look. 

We  must  have  more  than  that.   We  must  have  a  system 
by  which  citizenship  may  be  conserved.  That  is  what  we  need. 
When  thc\  used  to  talk  about  conservatism  of  timber  and  coal, 
I  thought  it  all  fine  enough;  but  I  favored  conservation  of  the 
human  family  as  well.    (Applause.)    That  is  what  Germany 
has  done.  You  may  argue  about  it  as  much  as  you  will— that 
is  the  one  country  that  has  tackled  the  modern  problem.  She 
has  succeeded  in  giving  protection  to  the  individual  without 
coddling  him.    Whenever  we  protect  anybody  he  leans  on  us 
twice  as  hard.    We  have  not  caught  the  idea.   I  do  not  know 
whether  we  can  do  it  in  a  republic.   I  assume  we  cannot  do 
what  Germany  does;  but  I  know  that  we  must  get  the  result, 
if  we  are  going  to  have  preparedness,  if  we  want  to  win  either 
in  the  field  of  battle  or  in  the  commercial  struggle.    It  all 
comes  back  to  the  fibre  and  spirit  and  wholesomeness  of  the 
men  and  women  and  children  of  the  nation.    That  is  the  real 
question.  (Applause.) 


—  22  — 


Now  if  our  entering  the  war  would  not  affect  the  result, 
as  I  think  it  would  not:  why  does  anybody  want  us  to  enter? 
Well,  people  usually  have  a  reason  for  wanting  a  thing  done. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  there  are  some  people  who  think  that 
perhaps  the  bonds  which  have  been  sold  in  this  country  would 
be  more  secure  if  we  did  enter  the  war.  1  do  not  know.  1 
have  none  of  the  bonds.  I  have  refused  to  go  into  any  part 
of  the  game.  I  have  no  stock  in  any  concern  that  makes  am- 
munition. I  sold  wherever  I  suspected  that  a  company  had 
engaged  in  that  business,  and  the  dividends  that  I  suspected 
might  in  part  he  the  result  of  ammunition  contracts,  I  gave 
to  the  Red  Cross  or  to  charity.  I  want  to  feel  that  I  have  not 
profited  by  it.  I  am  not  criticising  other  men  ;  it  is  their  busi- 
ness. For  my  part,  1  sleep  better,  and  1  think  my  children 
will  like  it  better  to  feel  that  what  little  I  leave  them  has  not 
got  the  red  thread  running  through  it.  (Applause.) 

There  is  a  stronger  reason  for  getting  us  into  the  war; 
and  that  is  our  position  at  the  close  of  it.  It  is  admitted  by 
both  Englishmen  and  Americans  that  we  cannot  do  more  for 
the  Allies  than  we  are  doing  now.  So  why  should  we  go  to 
any  further  trouble  ?  Because  at  the  end  of  the  war  it  is  pro- 
posed to  make  treaties  to  isolate  Germany  and  Austria.  Who 
will  be  party  to  that  treaty?  (J rent  Britain,  France,  Italy, 
Russia  and  perhaps  Japan.  Do  you  think  such  a  treaty  would 
be  effective  if  we  were  not  a  party  to  it?  Do  you  think  we 
could  be  made  a  party  unless  we  were  at  war  with  Germany 
and  Austria  at  the  end  of  the  conflict?  There  is  just  one  way 
of  getting  us  into  the  plan  and  that  is  by  having  us  excited 
enough  to  do  so  mad  a  thing;  that,  in  my  judgment,  is  the 
purpose  now.  Would  not  that  be  a  fine  exhibition?  We  have 
just  abrogated  our  treaties  with  Russia  because  she  would 
not  recognize  our  citizens  of  Jewish  confession.  We  could  not 
help  it.  People  were  so  indignant  about  it — the  press  was  so 
excited,  that  it  had  to  be  done.  Then  the  result  at  the  end  of 
this  war  would  be,  without  asking  any  more  questions,  to  make 

—  23  — 


a  new  treaty  with  Russia,  among  others,  and  against  the  coun- 
tries that  have  always  been  friendly  with  us— Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary.  How  long  do  you  think  that  would  last? 
We  make  some  decidedly  sharp  turns  in  this  country.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  represent  a  great  many  inherit- 
ances; and  in  my  judgment  we  should  not  trifle  with  sentiment 
that  is  honest  and  well  founded. 

We  see  everywhere  the  disposition  to  denounce  that  sen- 
timent.   It  is  the  dominant  note  in  the  war  discussions;  and 
we  recognize  it  in  the  new  inunigration  bill.    It  is  the  same 
idea.    I  believe  in  strengthening  the  immigration  law,  but  I 
do  not  believe  in  doing  it  in  the  way  that  has  been  adopted  in 
this  bill.    The  South  can  afford  it  because  they  have  all  the 
cheap  labor  they  want  and  they  will  be  glad  if  the  North  has 
no  cheap  labor.    That  is  true.    There  is,  however,  one  good 
thing  about  this  immigration  bill.   If  it  goes  through,  we  up 
here  who  are  talking  so  much  about  preparedness  will  have  to 
go  to  work  ourselves.    That  will  be  a  very  wholesome  thing 
for  a  good  many  of  us.   That  is  the  silver  lining  on  the  cloud. 
But  the  prejudice  which  prompts  the  bill  and  the  war  criti- 
cisms will  never  triumph.    You  can  not  dispose  of  a  whole- 
some, sound,  well-grounded  sentiment;  and  that  is  all  I  am 
contending  for.   I  respect  the  English.   I  cannot  understand 
this  feeling  of  animosity  in  this  country  for  another  people. 
Why  should  I  change  my  mind  about  a  people  because  these 
governments  are  at  wai  f  The  peoples  have  not  changed;  and 
several  of  them  constitute  practically  the  same  race.    I  like 
the  Irish— always  did.  1  have  a  warm  feeling  for  the  French 
-who  would  not!   May  I  not  respect  the  distinguished  men 
of  Italy  ?  I  need  not  go  through  the  category.  Why  am  I  not 
permitted  to  respect  other  people!    Is  my  patriotism  to  be 
tested  by  my  admiration  for  a  particular  one?   It  is  not  fair. 
Of  course,  I  am  the  son  of  immigrants.   They  had  a  right  to 
stop  in  England  if  they  wanted  to.   England  was  then  called 
the  cradle  of  liberty.    A  great  many  refugees  did  find  pro- 

—  24  — 


tection  there.    But  my  parents  thought  that  this  was  a  sep- 
arate country — the  United  States — with  a  distinct  form  of 
government,  giving  an  opportunity  for  the  fulfillment  of  the 
promise  of  liberty.    They  came  here  in  the  forties,  in  an  old 
sailing  vessel,  landing  at  New  Orleans.   They  drove  across  the 
plains  with  an  ox  team,  into  the  interior  of  Texas.  They 
started  as  all  other  pioneers  do.    Would  you  have  me  disavow 
my  ancestry  to  prove  my  patriotism  I    1  say  1  have  pictures  of 
Englishmen  on  the  wall,  and  English  hooks  on  my  shelves;  in 
spite  of  the  atrocity  reports,  Bryce's  volumes  among  them.  1 
have  the  picture  of  my  great-grandfather  on  the  wall,  and  the 
Bible  from  which  he  took  the  texts  for  his  sermons  on  my 
shelves.   He  was  a  Lutheran  clergyman  of  Northern  Prussia. 
Am  I  to  take  them  down  I    It  does  not  stand  to  reason.  Shall 
I  not  hold  them  sacred  still  '!   We  must  remember  that  we  are 
one  people;  and  if  we  plan  for  preparedness,  the  first  condi- 
tion is  a  united  people.   If  we  do  not  stand  together  our  coun- 
try cannot  live  either  in  peace  or  in  war.    We  are  put  to- 
gether as  no  people  in  history  ever  has  been.  We  are  not  one 
race  overrun  by  another  in  conquest.  We  are  not  one  supreme 
race  with  a  little  filtering  of  others.    But  we  are  a  people 
drawing  upon  every  nation  of  the  earth ;  assembled  under  one 
flag  to  test  out  the  success  of  a  republican  government.  We 
are  the  United  States,  and  only  that— not  English  or  German 
or  French  or  Italian.  We  are  moving  along  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, if  we  can  just  survive  this  attempt  to  disrupt  us.  We 
are  being  amalgamated  just  as  other  nations  have  been. 
There  is  no  pure  race  in  any  other  great  nation  on  the  other 
side.    The  English  people  are  not  a  pure  race.    Few  peoples 
are  more  mixed.  Germany  is  not.  The  Russians  are  not.  We 
above  all  and  beyond  all  have  endeavored  to  bring  to  our  aid 
the  strength  and  the  virtues  of  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth; 
and  upon  that  and  our  ability  to  eliminate  the  vices  depends 
the  triumph  of  our  institutions.    (Applan.se.)    That  is  our 
problem— based  on  broad  toleration.   The  traditions  of  these 

—  25  — 


different  nations  are  valuable.  Many  of  them  have  sweet  cus- 
toms that  serve  to  improve  our  conditions.  Some  of  them 
have  literature  and  others  have  songs;  and  some  have  both 
that  we  must  not  neglect.  I  cannot  forget  the  German  songs 
that  I  heard  my  father  sing.  Would  you  have  me  forget 
"Fine  feste  Burg  ist  mser  GoW't  I  cannot  do  it.  I  cannot 
surrender  it,  [f  I  did  my  loyalty  as  a  citizen  would  become  a 
sham  and  a  pretense. 

So  I  say,  we  are  by  degrees  being  amalgamated;  and  we 
are  gradually  becoming  a  distinct  type.  Look  where  you  will, 
upon  shop  or  school  or  farm,  a  new  people  has  arisen.  It 
represents  a  new  type — our  type — the  American  people. 
(Prolonged  applause.) 


-26  - 


